Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The general consensus is that the subject is not notable enough to sustain an article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Nepal relations

Yet another pair of countries with only a tenuous connection between them. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow: this has even less than Graubani/Polymour's articles. And I can't find anything that confers notability on this relationship. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What little information is in this "article" can be easily merged to one of the two "Foreign Relations of..." articles listed in "See also". --BlueSquadronRaven 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, per WP:N [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Still waiting on an argument why bilateral relations should be held to a much higher standard for inclusion than WP:N . . . Wily D 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on an argument why the content of these articles aren't covered by existing "Foreign relations of.." articles or exactly what among the sources you cite defines this topic as notable separately from the main articles. Do you have a better argument than simply directing us to WP:N without an indication of a specific criteria we should be looking at or to contextless newspaper articles that don't assert anything of historical significance in international relations? --BlueSquadronRaven 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chopping coherent material into bits and scattering it across a multitude of articles does not effectively communicate it. It's a disservice to us, and (and worse) a disservice to the reader. Wily D 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, something you and I agree on! Which is why all along I've been suggesting anything that could possibly be covered under this catch-all phrase of a title could just as easily be placed into existing articles such as the "Foreign relations of..." articles cited in the "See also" section. Anything that would expand beyond that would be worthy of a historical article on it's own, not a ctach-all such as this. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one visit by a foreign minister in a 39 years of official ties does not make for a very notable relationship. If all we can say about this is "relations exist, and by the way, the Greek FM came over for four days in 2000 to sip some mint tea", then we may as well delete. That's a news item, not a subject meriting encyclopedic coverage. And since the mere existence of bilateral relations (which in this case are little more than "mere", especially as nothing has happened in the "relationship" for 9 years), let's delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you haven't addressed is why we should ignore precedent, and the usual standards of WP:N, and impose a much higher standard for inclusion than we would for any other type of article. Wily D 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is, these articles get deleted for having no notable content not expressed or expressable elsewhere, sometimes even after being around and unedited for months. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the precedent. Many, many bilateral relations articles have been kept. Precedent is those nobody bothers to find sources for have been deleted, and those somebody has bothered to dig up a stack of sources for have been kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Holy See relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Tunisia relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Pakistan relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania–Uzbekistan relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Russia relations for precedent on the issue. Of course, the overarching precedent of WP:N also swings that way. Wily D 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poland–Uruguay relations? "Sources" were found, but deemed non-notable, resulting in deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses, I'll get it fixed. Wily D 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll get it fixed."? That, frankly, sounds like an admin about to abuse his authority. I hope I'm wrong. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I became an admin because I know how to do everything by the book. Haven't you assumed enough bad faith today? Wily D 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability asserted. Gigs (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the claim of notability I asserted? Wily D 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article itself doesn't even assert a claim of notability. In other article types, this could be Speedy Deleted under A7 for this fact alone. 2. Looking at your sources you placed here, just as in the case of the Yemen article, they are mostly very short blurbs only documenting the fact that a normal diplomatic visit occurred, as would be expected in the case of relations. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The class of objects isn't elidgible for A7, but nonetheless, what you're proposing would be a radically different standard for inclusion from that currently used, and should be floated at the Village Pump before testing driving it on hapless articles. Wily D 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that people are making up new, higher, standards, but that isn't happening. These articles fail the normal old WP:N standards, and just barely miss the criteria for speedy. No one is proposing a new standard here except you, who seem to be proposing that all bilateral relations are inherently notable. Gigs (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article blows by the standard of of WP:N. I haven't once suggested that bilateral relations are inherently notable - what I've suggested is that for almost every set of bilateral relations, a little investigation reveals that they're notable. I haven't argued to keep a single unsourced article - instead, I've found sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Wily D 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that so far, especially as such news items are used in the articles, all they do is make that article serve as a poor archive of newspaper clippings. WP:NOTNEWS --BlueSquadronRaven 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with guidelines before trying to enforce them. NOTNEWS isn't even vaguely applicable here. Wily D 10:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nn intersection; note, article page does not show AfD. JJL (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the AfD template issue. Gigs (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WilyD has shown that this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", thanks Wily. Hilary T (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any arguments addressing the article, or just ad hominems. If the former, please use them instead. Wily D 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made more than enough arguments for the deletion of the article. If you don't like the fact that the template exists, or that I used it accurately, take it to TfD. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no signs of WP:N being met. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one visit by a foreign affairs minister does not constitute notability. Tavix | Talk 11:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one official visit doesn't confer notability. Wikipedia is not a news service. Hut 8.5 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we prefer your expertise on what should be notable to our usual standards? WilyD 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because his interpretation of WP:N doesn't involve blindly following it to the disruption of all? There is no realistic argument for keeping articles such as these until they are fleshed out so that they stand on their own, and the best way to do that is to include information in other, much longer established, much more coherent and contextualized articles first and let them grow and be expanded on until that time. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable international relationship of no substnatial media or academic coverage anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.